Poll: Are you an organ doner?

Are you an organ donor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 206 59.2%

  • No

    Votes: 142 40.8%
  • Total voters
    348
PianoBasher said:
While the idea is noble, to me it sort of implies that your dead body is the state's property by default. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
Click to expand...
cm1179 said:
no it isn't. it's my right.

as i have said, i would donate to family or close friend in a heart beat as i know they would respect it. for an organ of mine to go to a stranger is something i cannot make a decision about right now.
Click to expand...
Lots of things are the state's property for the good of society as a whole. Everyone would benefit from such a rule. No one would lose out. The only argument against doing this is petty and in my opinion selfish dogma.
 
cm1179 said:
no it isn't. it's my right.

as i have said, i would donate to family or close friend in a heart beat as i know they would respect it. for an organ of mine to go to a stranger is something i cannot make a decision about right now.
Click to expand...

its a bit chicken and egg.

it would be your right to opt out.
just like it is my right to opt in.

But surely "for the greater good" (cue hot fuzz reference) an opt out system works better.
 
How about this: You can only receive bloods from a public bank or an organ and have the transplant under the NHS if you are opted into the donor register. If you opt out, you lose your rights completely and do not regain them even if you opt in again.

Give and take.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
How about this: You can only receive bloods from a public bank or an organ and have the transplant under the NHS if you are opted into the donor register. If you opt out, you lose your rights completely and do not regain them even if you opt in again.

Give and take.
Click to expand...

i was really hoping someone wasn't going to say this.
 
I don't agree with that particularly, i like the current system where no matter what kind of person you are outside, when you're in the hospital you're all the same. You get treated based on how likely you are to survive/make a full recovery. Nobody has the moral capacity to judge who is the better person and thus who deserves a new heart.

Besides, can you imagine the paperwork? :p
 
Who gets what organ is decided by dna profiling, you need to have a half decent genetic match anyway to have a good chance of the organ being successful. The anti rejection drugs (cyclosporin in my mums case) do the rest, completely obliterating your body's imune system so it wont attack the transplanted organ.
 
cm1179 said:
it doesn't make sense, that's not how this country should operate.
Click to expand...
It does make sense. Society should work for society as a whole and the greater good, as well as for the individual.

So far you haven't presented anything that explains why it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights - it only grants them. It asks for nothing of use to you personally in return, but grants you the opportunity to gain an awful lot of useful stuff if needs be.

The equivalent of not doing this would be allowing people the opportunity to opt out of National Insurance but still make full use of the NHS.
 
Last edited:
Hatter The Mad said:
It does make sense. Society should work for society as a whole and the greater good, as well as for the individual.

So far you haven't presented anything that explains why it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights - it only grants them. It asks for nothing of use to you personally in return, but grants you the opportunity to gain an awful lot of useful stuff if needs be.
Click to expand...

it's not fair, it's not possible, it would be a minefield.

picture the scenario, you're up against the clock, life saving operation has to take place. the person who needs the doner organs, records can't be found or there's a mistake on the records, is he a doner? they're not sure, what do they do? it's massively open to error. with the difficulty of finding a doner as it is, why complicate the situation more, or, in effect, play god?

it's pointless and not how this country should operate. i agree to an extent with give and take but this is one scenario where every case has to be judged individually and the current system is the best set-up.
 
I always mean to sign-up but am to lazy and apathetic to bother.

It should be set to an opt-out basis, why the hell not? The only people who would opt out would be the people who feel strongly about it, the rest who don't care would stay in, simples.

As it stands only the people who care opt in, then the rest who don't care, or are selfish are bunched together.
 
cm1179 said:
it's not fair, it's not possible, it would be a minefield.

picture the scenario, you're up against the clock, life saving operation has to take place. the person who needs the doner organs, records can't be found or there's a mistake on the records, is he a doner? they're not sure, what do they do? it's massively open to error. with the difficulty of finding a doner as it is, why complicate the situation more, or, in effect, play god?

it's pointless and not how this country should operate. i agree to an extent with give and take but this is one scenario where every case has to be judged individually and the current system is the best set-up.
Click to expand...

By the way im trying to have a reasonable debate I'm not disagreeing just to disagree.

so would you prefer no organ donations atall?

At the moment it is such a mammoth task to get donor organs to recipients and almost 0 margin for error, if there were in fact more donors a few organs lost here and there due to mistakes would be a small price to pay imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom